Module 2: Discussion: Reading Reflection
This week’s reading material talked about the value of developing individual electronic portfolios (Davis, Cho, Ishida, Soria, and Bazzi, pg. 9) to enhance student learning. Having completed a similar project for C&T 821 just a few weeks ago, I will attest to the value for the user! I also think journaling, even without literacy during the initial learning stages, is an engaging and helpful way for scholars to express their understanding. Related, the Module 2 language activity involving the sun and the planets was an outstanding reminder of the value of visual aids for assessment and teaching in addition to showcasing learning.
Throughout this module, important reminders of the necessity of vocabulary acquisition and growth abound. To support not yet literate L1 learners in the emergent bilingual quest, exposure to and repetition of new vocabulary, together with visual aids and authentic context is imperative. It’s also required by the Kansas State ESL standards (KS 9-12 ESL Standards for Writing 4.5). Also keep in mind the wise summary of the Building Bridges to Text book had to offer, “Explicit support for academic reading needs to occur in all content areas” (Gibbons, 2009, pg. 105).
Several different approaches to teaching reading are suggested in the book, Building Bridges to Text: Supporting Academic Reading (Gibbons, 2009, pgs. 81-84). These include Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches, both of which can be found together in Interactive Approaches, and Critical and Social Approaches to reading. As a mother of a child with a reading disability, I agree with the author about the downside of the Top-Down approach for EB’s and struggling L1 readers, too, especially the lack of background knowledge and possibly inadequate cultural context. Likewise, I’m more inclined to lean harder into the need for a greater focus on literacy mechanics using the bottom-up approach IF it can be done with authentic materials. This appears to be “a major disadvantage of phonics-driven programs for EL learners,” according to Gibbons (pg. 82). They suggest instructional texts have yet to resemble “everyday English” and can be culturally irrelevant.
I’ll add here that, in my opinion, for individuals who are not literate in their L1, I do think there is value in teaching L1 literacy in conjunction with English language instruction even at an added cost. As teachers, we want to build upon our scholars’ talents and not stunt them. I think this squarely situates the “reader as text participant” and would enhance efforts to map all new text using existing schemas. (Gibbons, 2009, pg. 86).
Recalling key learnings from my undergraduate experience, not only would I work within a framework of an interactive approach but also an integrated approach. Using and reusing new literacy components across all curricula to maximize repetition and exposure. In my opinion, this is exactly what made the SHALL program successful. Besides having student buy-in, it included a fully integrated, project-based approach to teaching and learning. I’m particularly interested in the awareness of multiple identities of the students (Davis, Cho, Ishida, Soria, and Bazzi, pg. 7) as well as the creation of “a third space (Bhabha 1994) where students’ primary and hybrid language practices er viewed as ‘an inherent feature of negotiation across differences,’ within the academic discourse of the classroom (pg. 11). Allowing for transparency and vulnerability likely enabled scholars to channel all of their talents into more creative content than would otherwise be realized.
References
Gibbons, P. (2009). Ch. 5: Building bridges to text: Supporting academic reading. In Gibbons, P. English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone Download English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone(pp. 80-105). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Davis, K., Cho, H., Ishida, M., Soria, J., & Bazzi, S. (2005). It’s our kuleana: A critical participatory approach to language minority education. In L. Pease-Alvarez and S. R. Schecter (Eds.) Learning, teaching, and community Download Learning, teaching, and community(pp. 3-25). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reply Julia Isbell
Hi Melinda,
I completely agree, the language activity really drove home the need for visual aids! I think the top-down approach to reading could be useful in specific contexts. I think it might be more useful for older readers who have a wider knowledge and experience base to pull from when compared to younger learners. I think it might also work better for learners who are already proficiently literate in their L1 and come from more similar cultures, as they would be able to recognize common structures/purposes of passages and cultural contexts or cues. I also agree that we should value students’ L1 literacy, as it will likely be beneficial for them in acquiring English literacy within L2/3/etc. Especially after last week’s page on the disappearance of many world languages, I think it is essential that we are also intentional about not creating an environment that replaces students’ native languages and cultures with English.
Throughout this module, important reminders of the necessity of vocabulary acquisition and growth abound. To support not yet literate L1 learners in the emergent bilingual quest, exposure to and repetition of new vocabulary, together with visual aids and authentic context is imperative. It’s also required by the Kansas State ESL standards (KS 9-12 ESL Standards for Writing 4.5). Also keep in mind the wise summary of the Building Bridges to Text book had to offer, “Explicit support for academic reading needs to occur in all content areas” (Gibbons, 2009, pg. 105).
Several different approaches to teaching reading are suggested in the book, Building Bridges to Text: Supporting Academic Reading (Gibbons, 2009, pgs. 81-84). These include Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches, both of which can be found together in Interactive Approaches, and Critical and Social Approaches to reading. As a mother of a child with a reading disability, I agree with the author about the downside of the Top-Down approach for EB’s and struggling L1 readers, too, especially the lack of background knowledge and possibly inadequate cultural context. Likewise, I’m more inclined to lean harder into the need for a greater focus on literacy mechanics using the bottom-up approach IF it can be done with authentic materials. This appears to be “a major disadvantage of phonics-driven programs for EL learners,” according to Gibbons (pg. 82). They suggest instructional texts have yet to resemble “everyday English” and can be culturally irrelevant.
I’ll add here that, in my opinion, for individuals who are not literate in their L1, I do think there is value in teaching L1 literacy in conjunction with English language instruction even at an added cost. As teachers, we want to build upon our scholars’ talents and not stunt them. I think this squarely situates the “reader as text participant” and would enhance efforts to map all new text using existing schemas. (Gibbons, 2009, pg. 86).
Recalling key learnings from my undergraduate experience, not only would I work within a framework of an interactive approach but also an integrated approach. Using and reusing new literacy components across all curricula to maximize repetition and exposure. In my opinion, this is exactly what made the SHALL program successful. Besides having student buy-in, it included a fully integrated, project-based approach to teaching and learning. I’m particularly interested in the awareness of multiple identities of the students (Davis, Cho, Ishida, Soria, and Bazzi, pg. 7) as well as the creation of “a third space (Bhabha 1994) where students’ primary and hybrid language practices er viewed as ‘an inherent feature of negotiation across differences,’ within the academic discourse of the classroom (pg. 11). Allowing for transparency and vulnerability likely enabled scholars to channel all of their talents into more creative content than would otherwise be realized.
References
Gibbons, P. (2009). Ch. 5: Building bridges to text: Supporting academic reading. In Gibbons, P. English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone Download English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone(pp. 80-105). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Davis, K., Cho, H., Ishida, M., Soria, J., & Bazzi, S. (2005). It’s our kuleana: A critical participatory approach to language minority education. In L. Pease-Alvarez and S. R. Schecter (Eds.) Learning, teaching, and community Download Learning, teaching, and community(pp. 3-25). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reply Julia Isbell
Hi Melinda,
I completely agree, the language activity really drove home the need for visual aids! I think the top-down approach to reading could be useful in specific contexts. I think it might be more useful for older readers who have a wider knowledge and experience base to pull from when compared to younger learners. I think it might also work better for learners who are already proficiently literate in their L1 and come from more similar cultures, as they would be able to recognize common structures/purposes of passages and cultural contexts or cues. I also agree that we should value students’ L1 literacy, as it will likely be beneficial for them in acquiring English literacy within L2/3/etc. Especially after last week’s page on the disappearance of many world languages, I think it is essential that we are also intentional about not creating an environment that replaces students’ native languages and cultures with English.